Good insights here. I feel weird calling myself a theologian or a philosopher, even though technically I might have the right to call myself either one. But I never feel strange calling myself an apologist, because nobody views that as an honorific.
I blame this confusion on popular expressions like ‘the philosopher’s stone’. You wouldn’t believe how many times I have to correct these when I edit/review translations to and from my mother tongue.
I think that Cicero would agree with your definition of philosopher. In Obligations he talks about philosophers and politicians and warriors as classes of work, not as a title someone earns like Doctor. It is because of your YouTube channel that I’ve realized that I am a philosopher , though no where nearly as educated as yourself. I think it’s worth calling ourselves that as acknowledging I am seeking wisdom.
totally agree. this is largely why I refer to myself (in my substack bio, not in day-to-day conversation 😂) as an unlicensed philosopher. I like to think that takes the edge off.
Some find it difficult to title themselves as X. Writers describe themselves as "a person who likes to write." A man meditating does not call himself a Buddhist, but a practitioner of Buddhism. This is prominent in academic or artistic circles where imposter syndrome may run rampant. Imagine a truck driver saying that he won't really be a truck driver until he has driven for at least a decade, appears moronic.
I think the difference between philosopher and sage as you described it here is apt. Regardless, I do find comments like that a bit funny. Your videos and posts offer wisdom, pieces of shared knowledge, and lessons on philosophy that, personally, have been a great source of ideas to ponder, and sometimes implement in my own life. As you’ve said before on your channel and here, “eat the meat, spit out the bones.” It seems like getting too hung up on something you may disagree with someone on is preventative of all the things you could potentially learn from them. Keep up the great work, and keep calling yourself a philosopher.
I like this article a lot. I don't consider myself a Philosopher, having barely scrape the surface and being solely self-taught. I am not at the level of someone with a bachelor's degree, even. Yet I do consider myself a student of philosophy. I read Meditations regularly, as a good to life. Same for the ENCHIRIDION and Discourses. I'm staying the letters of Seneca. I also read books by modern authors who have studied these philosophers, such as Donald J Robertson.
I also read and reread the Havamal, a Norse guide to living. I'll probably read other things as well, that aren't considered "philosophy" in the schools. But I resonate with the Stoic idea that philosophy should be lived, but just studied. I try. But that's why I'm just a student. I'll never be a sage, or ever get a PhD. I'm good with that.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while because I’ve heard you call yourself a Sage or mention you like to be a sage not sure exactly which but here’s my thoughts. I think to be a philosopher or to be a sage is more of a mindset, once you operating from that mindset This will produce things and manifest in reality, but I suppose this is looking at it from my more ancient approach, Plato did not have PhD in philosophy, but no one would not say that he wasn’t a philosopher. So my question has always been I see how one could be a philosopher. I don’t understand how one could be a sage. I looked this up a while back and from what I discovered, the sage is the person that knows everything and I don’t think that anyone knows everything. people that I’ve seen who have that mindset Tend to be quite arrogant and egotistical. They tend to be lacking in the fulfillment of knowing everything part of the equation, I don’t know if that’s what you mean by Sage, but that was the understanding I got from it while researching it. To me, the philosopher (mindset) is the person who is seeking wisdom and the sage (mindset) is the person who knows everything, They are not seeking wisdom because they are already wise and need no further knowledge. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I would love to know.
You make very good points, and I think the distinction between philosopher and sage is spot-on. It reminds of how the Orthodox do not consider a student of theology a theologian, but a scholar. For a theologian must be one who is also spiritually advanced in prayers and virtues, not just knowledgeable of the work of previous theologians.
You go to any internet community and find people who like to gatekeep a term. Can you call yourself a gamer if you only play mobile games? Can you call yourself a photographer if nobody is paying you for taking pictures? Can you call yourself a reader if you only read romance, even worse — listen to audiobooks.
The question you’ve raised is not a philosophical question, it’s a linguistic question. Let linguistics figure this out, while you continue calling yourself a philosopher. Or even a sage. I have no problem with that.
Good post. Reminds me of a conversation I never quite had with my sister-in-law, who teaches yoga. I asked her one time if she was prepared to guide her students if her exercises actually awakened the kundalini energy that yoga is intended to activate. The telos of “philosophy” is understood by many to be something like “waking up,” but the perception is that most professors of philosophy are not actually awakened beings.
Good insights here. I feel weird calling myself a theologian or a philosopher, even though technically I might have the right to call myself either one. But I never feel strange calling myself an apologist, because nobody views that as an honorific.
I used to feel that way about 'apologist' when I first got started actually.
I blame this confusion on popular expressions like ‘the philosopher’s stone’. You wouldn’t believe how many times I have to correct these when I edit/review translations to and from my mother tongue.
May be using the philosopher's stone in my science fiction novel 😅
~
Agreed - (dumb) folk conflate 'philosopher' with 'sage'.
'Philosopher' is one of the few labels that anyone can adopt - just by concerning themselves with - philosophy.
Sure - if you called yourself a sage - it would either have to be visibly tongue-in-cheek, or yup - would of course be viewed as pretentious.
We can call ourselves philosophers - but it is for others to call us sages.
I think that Cicero would agree with your definition of philosopher. In Obligations he talks about philosophers and politicians and warriors as classes of work, not as a title someone earns like Doctor. It is because of your YouTube channel that I’ve realized that I am a philosopher , though no where nearly as educated as yourself. I think it’s worth calling ourselves that as acknowledging I am seeking wisdom.
totally agree. this is largely why I refer to myself (in my substack bio, not in day-to-day conversation 😂) as an unlicensed philosopher. I like to think that takes the edge off.
Some find it difficult to title themselves as X. Writers describe themselves as "a person who likes to write." A man meditating does not call himself a Buddhist, but a practitioner of Buddhism. This is prominent in academic or artistic circles where imposter syndrome may run rampant. Imagine a truck driver saying that he won't really be a truck driver until he has driven for at least a decade, appears moronic.
I think the difference between philosopher and sage as you described it here is apt. Regardless, I do find comments like that a bit funny. Your videos and posts offer wisdom, pieces of shared knowledge, and lessons on philosophy that, personally, have been a great source of ideas to ponder, and sometimes implement in my own life. As you’ve said before on your channel and here, “eat the meat, spit out the bones.” It seems like getting too hung up on something you may disagree with someone on is preventative of all the things you could potentially learn from them. Keep up the great work, and keep calling yourself a philosopher.
I like this article a lot. I don't consider myself a Philosopher, having barely scrape the surface and being solely self-taught. I am not at the level of someone with a bachelor's degree, even. Yet I do consider myself a student of philosophy. I read Meditations regularly, as a good to life. Same for the ENCHIRIDION and Discourses. I'm staying the letters of Seneca. I also read books by modern authors who have studied these philosophers, such as Donald J Robertson.
I also read and reread the Havamal, a Norse guide to living. I'll probably read other things as well, that aren't considered "philosophy" in the schools. But I resonate with the Stoic idea that philosophy should be lived, but just studied. I try. But that's why I'm just a student. I'll never be a sage, or ever get a PhD. I'm good with that.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while because I’ve heard you call yourself a Sage or mention you like to be a sage not sure exactly which but here’s my thoughts. I think to be a philosopher or to be a sage is more of a mindset, once you operating from that mindset This will produce things and manifest in reality, but I suppose this is looking at it from my more ancient approach, Plato did not have PhD in philosophy, but no one would not say that he wasn’t a philosopher. So my question has always been I see how one could be a philosopher. I don’t understand how one could be a sage. I looked this up a while back and from what I discovered, the sage is the person that knows everything and I don’t think that anyone knows everything. people that I’ve seen who have that mindset Tend to be quite arrogant and egotistical. They tend to be lacking in the fulfillment of knowing everything part of the equation, I don’t know if that’s what you mean by Sage, but that was the understanding I got from it while researching it. To me, the philosopher (mindset) is the person who is seeking wisdom and the sage (mindset) is the person who knows everything, They are not seeking wisdom because they are already wise and need no further knowledge. If anyone has any thoughts on this, I would love to know.
You make very good points, and I think the distinction between philosopher and sage is spot-on. It reminds of how the Orthodox do not consider a student of theology a theologian, but a scholar. For a theologian must be one who is also spiritually advanced in prayers and virtues, not just knowledgeable of the work of previous theologians.
You go to any internet community and find people who like to gatekeep a term. Can you call yourself a gamer if you only play mobile games? Can you call yourself a photographer if nobody is paying you for taking pictures? Can you call yourself a reader if you only read romance, even worse — listen to audiobooks.
The question you’ve raised is not a philosophical question, it’s a linguistic question. Let linguistics figure this out, while you continue calling yourself a philosopher. Or even a sage. I have no problem with that.
Good post. Reminds me of a conversation I never quite had with my sister-in-law, who teaches yoga. I asked her one time if she was prepared to guide her students if her exercises actually awakened the kundalini energy that yoga is intended to activate. The telos of “philosophy” is understood by many to be something like “waking up,” but the perception is that most professors of philosophy are not actually awakened beings.